430 Revista del Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos Núm. 2 / 2013 This data demonstrates that U.S. military spending accounts for a proportionally and increasingly larger percentage of GDP than that of China. However, it is important to clarify that while China’s economy has been growing at a rate of almost 10% for the past twenty years and that of the USA at an average rate of 3%, the absolute weight of military spending in China has also grown considerably. Current figures on military expenditure show that the United States spends five times more than China. However, these figures should be analysed with caution, given that while the budget allocated to military items is very clear in the United States, this is not the case in China, where military expenditure may be disguised as civil expenditure. Nevertheless, even if this is taken into account, military spending by the United States is considerably higher and determines the balance of power between the two nations. The data also shows that China has a larger number of active army officers than the United States, that is to say, it is more labour intensive. On the other hand, the U.S. army is more capital intensive, given that it spends considerably more on active–duty personnel, who are more costly. According to data from the Office of Management and Budget of the U.S. government, expenditure per member of the Armed Forces increased from $50,000 in 1980 to $350,000 in 2010. This reflects the level of technology and capital goods used by each solider of the U.S. army. While China has achieved military might primarily – but not exclusively - through the number of soldiers in its army, the United States has done so by considerably improving its combat equipment. Data from the World Military Strength Comparison demonstrates, for example, that the U.S. air force is three times larger than that of China and it has six times more helicopters. While the two countries have the same number of tanks, the Chinese navy has more boats, although these are smaller and not as well equipped as their U.S. counterparts. In addition, Washington is putting a large number of unmanned aerial vehicles into operation, and has significantly more drones than China. Overall, the data indicates that the U.S. army is a far more powerful fighting force than that of China, as is to be expected of the world’s greatest, but not most dominant, power. However, some analyses suggest that increased military spending by the U.S. has actually proven less effective from a strategic perspective, contrary to what the large spending figures would suggest9. From 1998 to 2010, the overall defence budget grew by 108 percent in real terms, while the number of active-duty military personnel remained relatively flat. Yet over the same period, according to the analysis, the number of aircraft in the Air Force declined by almost 1,000 units, and the average age of its aircraft increased from 19.6 years to 24.4 years. The Navy reduced its fleet by almost 60 units. Harrison concludes that the U.S. military is smaller, older and more expensive than 15 years ago. This can be attributed to a rise in compensation costs of every description (including health care for military personnel who were in the Iraq and Afghanistan 9 Harrison, T., “Defense Cuts Conundrum: Weighing the Hard Choices Ahead”, 2013.http://www. csbaonline.org/2013/09/29/defense-cuts-conundrum-weighing-the-hard-choices-ahead/
REVISTA IEEE 2
To see the actual publication please follow the link above